Santa Monica's Airport Commission was under fire this week after the City Manager scolded it for taking sides with local activists. The chairman of the commission contends "we are fair."
A private jet heads down the runway to take off at SMO
Protesters rally outside the entrance of Santa Monica Airport.
Rick Brown, chairman of the city's Airport Commission, is disputing accusations that the group is siding with activists who want noisy, flights limited or shut down entirely at the Santa Monica Airport.
The charges came this week from within City Hall, where the City Manager said that the commission is inviting residents to partake in a biased survey, and, possibly, operating at the behest of the neighborhood coalition that’s distributing it, Community Against Santa Monica Airport.
“The title of the survey indicates that it is city sanctioned and is a city document. It is neither,” City Manager Rod Gould wrote in a two-page letter dated Dec. 6. “It begs the question as to whether CASMAT is a covert arm of the Airport Commission or the Airport Commission is a vehicle of CASMAT. Either way the Commission loses legitimacy."
The city is in the midst of a “highly charged,” three-phase project aimed at acquiring professional evaluations and public input on how the airport should look and operate after 2015, when its current operational agreement with the Federal Aviation Administration expires. (The FAA insists its control over SMO will continue after that date).
The charges came this week from within City Hall, where the City Manager said that the commission is inviting residents to partake in a biased survey, and, possibly, operating at the behest of the neighborhood coalition that’s distributing it, Community Against Santa Monica Airport.
“The title of the survey indicates that it is city sanctioned and is a city document. It is neither,” City Manager Rod Gould wrote in a two-page letter dated Dec. 6. “It begs the question as to whether CASMAT is a covert arm of the Airport Commission or the Airport Commission is a vehicle of CASMAT. Either way the Commission loses legitimacy."
The city is in the midst of a “highly charged,” three-phase project aimed at acquiring professional evaluations and public input on how the airport should look and operate after 2015, when its current operational agreement with the Federal Aviation Administration expires. (The FAA insists its control over SMO will continue after that date).
Last week, Brown blamed the city for commissioning two studies at the core of the first phase of the "visioning" process, but that he said fell short of the community's expectations.
Brown said the consultants had studied what they were asked, but said the city should have asked that the studies be more comprehensive, like asking for the specific costs and economic benefits of flight schools.
In backing Gould's concerns, City Councilman Bobby Shriver said Tuesday that “there’s a mounting body of evidence that the Airport Commission is not interested in understanding a full range of options” for the airport’s future.
But Brown told Patch on Friday that there is just one commissioner member “involved” with the survey, and, more importantly, he said, that’s it not being circulated by the commission itself.
“I can’t be responsible for what others do,” he said. “We have worked very hard to create opportunities for views to be heard on all sides of the issues.”
Specifically, he cited a commission workshop "that had never been done before" where representatives from the airport's flight schools were invited to speak about their operations. The flight schools account for a substantial portion airport traffic, and neighborhood activists have targeted them in their anti-airport campaigns.
"I think everyone agreed it was a very productive conversation," Brown said.
City Manager Rod Gould appeared equally chaffed in the letter by a recent request from Brown to review material that will be presented by city staffers to community stakeholder groups in the coming months.
"Your request and comments imply that staff cannot be trusted," Gould wrote in his letter.
"Our request to review the guidance documents for the discussion groups was not to audit city staff as suggested in [Gould's] letter, but, really, to be able to confirm to the public that the document is impartial and useful ... we want to build confidence in the visioning process," Brown told Patch.
Gould concludes the letter by suggesting he discuss with the commission its "role and aims."
The two have set up a meeting to hash out the grievances, Brown said.
"My whole orientation is to create opportunities for members of the community to be heard, and then to process what they say and provide our advice to the [City] Council—that’s what we’re charged with doing," he said. "I think we’re doing that … I think we’re doing it fairly."
No comments:
Post a Comment